Skip to comments.U.S. drug war has met none of its goals (War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)
Posted on 05/13/2010 9:11:14 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
MEXICO CITY (AP) After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.
"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
White House propaganda dutifully reported by the AP.
..................(War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)...............
Yeah, and in Breaking News, everything the government has ever done has always been a blithering hi-cost failure. (Military Excepted!!
Now, welcome to five days of postal service to bring you your new ObamaaCare monthly invoice!
Government is a big government failure
Kerlikowske was about as worthless a POS chief of police imaginable. Illegal aliens...no biggie. Aggressive bums assaulting people downtown....too bad. Riots in the streets...we can’t do anything. Fags buggering each other in teh parks...its their civil rights. Graffiti....who cares. Make an ‘inappropriate’ comment about someone...OFF WITH YOUR HEAD.
Don’t hang your hat on what this asshole has to say.
How’s that “War on Poverty” thing coming along? We’ve spent trillions on that also. Haven’t heard anything about it lately with the ‘RATS now controlling the country. I guess we must have won because the ‘RATS are now wanting to import more poverty. We’ve got a poverty shortage.
War on Drugs is amazing!
I Live MA, HEROIN is a phone call away.
Cocaian? The same.
If i wanna do it i can.
The “war” is not here.
I do not hang my hat on what he’s saying. My hat’s hung on the evidence, the illegal activities of our “LEOs” and the Constitution, NONE of which lend support to any continuation of the War on Some Drugs or what it’s done to and cost our society in terms of lives ruined, treasure dissipated foolishly and families torn asunder because a bunch of nameless, faceless jackbooted scumbag drug “warriors” can’t get it through their heads that they have NO Constitutional authority to even EXIST. (Especially when said “warriors” couldn’t hold their water for even five seconds if they ever went up against a REAL warrior. Against unarmed citizens and the occasional illegal, they are really Billy Badass, though, aren’t they?)
It seems to me this is one of the very few things the Obama Admin. has gotten somewhat right. People on this site claim to understand market capitalism. One of capitalism's basic tenets is that the supply of any commodity will grow to meet demand.
Sure enough, as the insatiable U.S. demand for drugs has grown over the past 40 years, so has the supply. Farmers who could be growing food for the people in Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico and other drug-producing countries are growing opium poppies, coca and marijuana instead. Most of it goes directly to the lucrative U.S. market by any means necessary. That brings crime, violence and murderous drug gangs.
If the American demand for dangerous drugs is not reduced the supply will grow ever larger, with terrible consequences for America. It's time to begin attacking the sickness, not the symptoms.
Well, you can vote for Arnold, Or Kucinich, or Paul. Them’s some real he men for ya.
I agree with your post #9.
Recreational drug abuse is a vice, and a foul one, but the ‘war on drugs’ is an abject failure in virtually every analysis.
Well, dang, why don’t we just legalize drugs that will sure solve the problem!
And overindulging in ANY intoxicant may even be sinful, but since when is SIN the province of secular government?
Well, the War on Poverty is an even bigger failure. If we’re going to throw in the towel, let’s start with that one.
The wod is a classic example of mental illness. Keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different response. What person with a triple digit IQ still supports the biggest waste of tax money this side of the entitlement monoliths?
There, fixed it for you. Somehow the republic managed to stagger on with drugs legal right up to about 1913 or 1914, when different ethnic groups were targeted by government for demonization and control. Chinese were users of smokable opium, for example, so their intoxicant of choice was demonized by the oft repeated claim that Chinese men would lure white women into their opium dens, get them high on opium and then debauch them. The American Medical Association was adamant that outlawing drugs was NOT medically indicated and could cause serious problems of its own. But they were ignored by a Congress too interested in asserting more and more control over the lives of others... sort of what they are doing yet to this day. (And recall that the very Progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, he who segregated the armed forces, which had been integrated to that point, was President and was both anxious to HAVE this control AND very intolerant of the "lesser" races.) Some justification for your war on some drugs, huh?
I did vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries, even registering as a Pubbie so I could. But why do I need a “he-man” when all I want is for government to LEAVE ME ALONE? I want government out of EVERYTHING it does that is not specifically allowed by the tenth amendment. If you want government to regulate others’ lives in the areas YOU find it agreeable for them to do so, what makes you one whit different from Obambi or Pelousy? Or the late, unlamented Teddy “No Pants” Kennedy?
It’s worse than that. It was (and is) a shining example of the Progressive/Liberal mindset, bought hook, line and sinker by some who call themselves “Conservative.” (Of course they might be Conservative in the way that Churchill described them when he said that “A Liberal’s job is to make mistakes and a Conservative’s job is to prevent the mistakes from being righted>” (Paraphrasing)
Good to the some of the Free Republic Drug Warriors (Armchair Division) still carrying the flag. Who cares about the costs? It’s about being righteous no matter how many other people are kidnapped and murdered. They are sacrifices on the altar of self-righteousness.
State govs also outlaw drugs. Is that illegal too?
It’s morally reprehensible and wrong, but it might conceivably be legal. But again, WHY? If you favor the war on some drugs, what sets you apart from the Left? What makes you any different than Obambi or his Constitution-wrecking crew?
(Notice that there is no reason for you not to preach against drug use or use your powers of moral suasion to convince others to abstain; there is EVERY reason to renounce the use of GOVERNMENT FORCE to do your bidding!)
Why? Same reason that pharmaceuticals are tested before approved. Same reason states have a dinking age. Same reason you can’t marry your dad though you might love him dearly. Same reason you can’t walk around naked at the local strip mall. Same reason you can’t use creosote to keep your lawn from growing too fast. Same reason you can’t juggle live grenades in the median of main street. Same reason you can’t ride a cow in the supermarket. The same reason you can’t live in the local park. Same reason you can’t sit and stare in the window of the local grade school.
Who still supports it? The people on the receiving end of all that tax money, that’s who. They want to keep that gravy train rolling.
No, actually I don’t believe the country will be destroyed by re-legalizing drugs. I believe that the war on some drugs is destroying the Constitution, at an ever more rapid rate. I believe that there is NO PLACE in a free society for the kinds of control over others that is engendered by this “war.” I believe that some drug users, after re-legalization, may put themselves in contention for the Darwin Awards by OD’ing and removing themselves from the realm of the living. I believe that MOST drug users, as it is today, will continue to be responsible and moderate in their recreation, just as MOST folks who use the drug alcohol are... with some notable exceptions, but you aren’t willing to instate Prohibition III are you? And re-criminalize the use of alcohol and outlaw tobacco?
Where did you ever get the notion that it’s OK to have this sort of control over other folks’ lives? Why, I bet it was that Progressive Democrat, Woody Wilson, wasn’t it? And you bought into his lies, didn’t you? As I told pissant, there is no reason on earth for you to NOT go out and preach against drug use (but don’t forget “demon rum” when you do) and use every ounce of moral suasion you can muster, but there is EVERY REASON to renounce the use of government force to do the job for you. Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin? I simply cannot find it ANYWHERE in my Bible. In fact I found quite the opposite. I find where He says that we are supposed to go forth and BE WITNESSES to His saving GRACE. How does that stack up to trashing our Constitution by getting laws passed to do the work that rightly falls on the Church?
Gee whiz, just about everything you list (except the “dad” part. Eeew!! Icky! You’re sick!) sounds just like what LOCAL COMMUNITIES should do to control PUBLIC BEHAVIORS. Something I have no issues with whatsoever. It is what one does IN PRIVATE or with consenting others that is not the business of government.
Oh, and the drinking age thing... that is something best left to FAMILIES to deal with, again NOT THE LEGITIMATE province of government. And there is (once more) NO AUTHORITY GRANTED to government to “approve” or disapprove pharmaceuticals, period. That was, once again, a gift from the Progressive Left (this time the Pubbie, Teddy Roosevelt, another big government power-grabber).
Why is it that people like you, personable and even likable in many other ways, have swallowed so much of the big government Kool Aid?
Oh, where to begin? Hmmmm...
Homosexual “marriage” is wrong because it implies family. Families often involve CHILDREN. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce their own kind, there must be recruitment. This involves the participation of children (not unlike that homosexual professor or whatever he was at Duke, offering up his FIVE YEAR OLD foster child on the internet for sex with anyone who had the right price). Children are NOT capable of giving informed consent to such acts; thus they are VICTIMS of these predators. Thus, such “marriage” can rightly be outlawed. (And I am no longer willing to allow homosexuals to hold sway over the word “gay.” They are NOT gay (happy, even giddy sometimes); they are mostly miserable and to allow them to further corrupt the language as they have corrupted society is unacceptable to me and morally WRONG!)
Murder, lying (mostly), child abuse, deviancy (involving others INVOLUNTARILY, including animals), rape, robbery, et cetera, all have one thing in common, which is why they are (almost) universally banned: THERE IS AN INJURED PARTY who has either not GIVEN consent to be part of that activity OR is incapable, either by age or mental capacity, of giving voluntary, informed consent.
Drug usage is a VOLUNTARY, consensual activity. Please try again.
(Oh, and by the way, I am NOT a Libertarian. I am a STRICT Constitutionist.)
According to Paul (who should know), we are NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW or bound by it. We are under God’s GRACE as expressed by Christ’s death on the cross AND HIS RESURRECTION, giving us victory over not only sin and the LAW (by His sacrifice) but over DEATH ITSELF. Yes, there are things we should not do, as Christians, it’s true. But our relationship to the law of the Old Testament has changed completely.
dcwusmc, why are you always posting this drug legalization crap?
pissant and SoConPubbie are 100% correct—states have the legal right to make drugs illegal (and will do so) no matter what the federal government does. Plus, the federal government is constitutionally permitted to regulate interstate commerce and ban the import of whatever drugs it wants.
Suppose CA does pass the measure. Would you support its Tenth Amendment prerogative to enact the program without fedgov interference? Or, would you support fedgov shutting down the program under authority of the Commerce Clause?
what we got was gang violence, prostitution, and crooked cops from the “drug war”.
The 'War on Drugs' is unconstitutional as Hell.
Would I support the right of a state to legalize drugs within its borders? Yes.
Would I vote to legalize marijuana in my own state. Nope.
My opinion of the Commerce Clause? If the activity doesn’t involve commerce (buying and selling of goods) and isn’t among the several states (between states), the Commerce Clause does not apply.
I think Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most blatant power grabs in the history of this nation. It was legal in the sense that the SCOTUS ruled, but it was clearly an immoral, subversive, and dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.
“U.S. drug war has met none of its goals (War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)”
It’s said that those who think socialism has always failed misunderstand its purpose. The same can be said about the WoD.
I think it has met plenty of its goals: terrorizing citizens without repercussion, trillions of taxpayer dollars soaked up, not to mention asset forfeiture to incentivize arrests. They get lifetime sinecures in a bloated bureaucracy, and they get lots of cool toys to play with. The exact opposite of failure.
Sometimes, even propaganda is true.
The "war on drugs" is lost. The War on our Rights continues apace.
Please point out to me just WHERE the Founders said it would be OK for FedGov to use the ICC to ban or prohibit one solitary thing. Anything at all. Because their sole purpose for putting that clause in there was to ensure that the Several States did NOT do stupid stuff like put tariffs on goods coming in from another State or even just passing through from seaport to another State. THAT was their whole intent, not some penumbra or emanation that gave Congress authority to ban stuff or behave as they are with the so-called health care bill. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers plus the writings of Jefferson. What you allege is mentioned as NOT being a power given to FedGov.
And if you don’t LIKE what I post, don’t read it. Because it’s all part and parcel of the same thing: RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC.
And if you want to talk about the States, fine. Remember, the Founders specifically stated in the ORIGINAL Founding Document that ours was to be a government whose JUST powers were given to it with and by “consent of the governed.” Now, I don’t know about you, but an HONEST man will acknowledge that he cannot give his consent to having something done in his name or on his behalf THAT HE HIMSELF DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO DO INDIVIDUALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. He cannot hire someone to take from another to fund HIS well-being because HE HIMSELF is enjoined from doing so to begin with.
Likewise, he cannot prohibit his neighbor from eating pork, say, because HE hates pigs. So how does he legitimately give his “consent” to having a third party (government) do it for him? HE CANNOT. At MOST he and his other neighbors may properly enjoin the pork eater from cooking and consuming IN A PUBLIC AREA off the pork eater’s property.
You with me so far? Or do I have to use smaller words and put in pictures? Because as long as people like you and your pals want to trash the Constitution in the name of some “war” on something or other, it matters not what, you jackasses are leaving the door wide open for the Left to do the same thing in THEIR turn. FREEDOM means you have to put up with stuff you may not like very much in order to be able to do what YOU want to do.
And that is why I am dead set against ANY form of prohibition by government. It violates the very principles this nation was founded on, the very bedrock of the Republic.
I am going to ask you the same question I asked pissant (and have yet to see answered by anyone. Do YOU have the stones to try?)
In your zeal to control others’ lives by ignoring the Constitution, what exactly is it that would set you apart from the likes of Obambi, Pelousy or Harry Reid?
For a professed Christian, your reply was insulting. Clearly you take the WOD very seriously, but that’s no cause to insult or demean other posters.
“You with me so far?”
“Or do I have to use smaller words and put in pictures?”
“Because as long as people like you and your pals want to trash the Constitution in the name of some war on something or other...” (No hyperbole there at all...)
“...you jackasses are leaving the door wide open for the Left to do the same thing in THEIR turn.”
“The same place that says it is OK to have control over people’s lives where Gay Marriage is concerned, Murder is concerned, Deviancy is concerned, Lying is concerned, child abuse is concerned, etc. etc. etc.
“God’s word, the Bible.”
What Bible would that be? I’ve read the Bible many times, and cannot find anywhere in the Bible, after the collapse of the Kingdom (OT), that it ever says Christians are supposed to use government to force their moral views on other people. All I can find are verses telling Christians to obey the government and pray for peace and freedom to worship as they believe.
Perhaps you can point to one of those verses that says, “Christians should influence the government to make all people behave as thought they were Christians, whether they are or not,” or something like that.
A Christian professes Christ crucified. I am insulted ny many Christians every day, as I watch their lives...
Demean implies you are correct in your assumptions and bigotry. Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is...
dcwusmc: “In your zeal to control others lives by ignoring the Constitution, what exactly is it that would set you apart from the likes of Obambi, Pelousy or Harry Reid?”
Your logic is faulty and extreme.
If I don’t agree with you that drugs should be completely legalized, then I’m trashing the US Constitution. There’s no middle ground, only your definition of the US Constitution applies, and I’m trashing the document if I don’t agree. That’s faulty logic—a false dilemma.
Plus, you present another false dichotomy. Even if I was ignoring the US Constitution, it doesn’t mean I’m like Obama or Pelosi. Opposition to the unfettered distribution of hard drugs is not the same thing as taking property from one citizen to give to another, forcing people to enroll in government health care, etc.
You see the WOD as a simple black and white issue, but that is an extreme view of the US Constitution. I’m not trying to insult you. Even if you could stack the SCOTUS with sympathetic judges and overturn the WOD, the states would set an amendment speed record to grant that power back to the fed. No significant portion of the voting public will ever support the sale of meth, crack, etc. at Wal-Mart.
I’m not posting this to try and convince you to change your mind or because I have the “stones” to refute you. I’m posting this so that others will see the faulty logic in your posts.
Under our beloved constitution that is not the case. However, it is also true that states are free to have whatever drug laws they wish without federal interference.
President Reagan was a good man, but he should have listened to Mrs. Reagan regarding drug policy - "Just Say No" is the only sane thing to do. Asset forfeiture (and the ability of police to confiscate property that is "suspected" as being involved in a drug "crime" is unAmerican. As are the anti-financial privacy laws his administration enacted. Only the corrupt rich get it. Everyone else gets screwed.
Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America (behind only alcohol and tobacco), and has been used by nearly 100 million Americans. According to government surveys, some 25 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year, and more than 14 million do so regularly despite harsh laws against its use. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.
Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, “The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco.”
Get the facts. See our Library
Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, roughly 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.
NORML supports the eventual development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source. This policy, generally known as legalization, exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which enjoy lower rates of adolescent marijuana use than the U.S. Such a system would reduce many of the problems presently associated with the prohibition of marijuana, including the crime, corruption and violence associated with a “black market.”